What needs improvement with AutoSys Workload Automation?

There are areas of AutoSys Workload Automation that have room for improvement. They are implementing good enhancements in the R24 release. The web UI needs some improvement. Cloud integrations are limited to 25 or 30 configurable plugins and integrations to the cloud. They can improve in that area. They have separate tools, not AutoSys Workload Automation, such as Atomic and other SaaS-based solutions that can run inside the cloud. AutoSys Workload Automation can be configured in the cloud, but it requires a substantial number of VMs depending on the load. For on-premises deployment, it is a very good solution. They need to increase their footprint in the cloud and improve the web UI. They are making excellent progress in the R24 release.

AutoSys Workload Automation is not currently enabled in the AWS marketplace. I have not checked it as I recently came back to workload automation product solutions. It is all about the strategy you take for any tool. If you own a tool, you have a market. You have to consider how you want to penetrate it and how existing customers are moving. Most AutoSys Workload Automation customers are moving because of cost; it is more cost intrusive. It is cost-agnostic because of its robustness and scalability, as no other tools can offer such robust and scalable solutions. However, it comes with a cost, and its licensing model is also a little costlier compared to customers' requirements. If you are running a smaller organization, you do not need advanced features. It all depends on the customer requirements. I am a service provider or IT service organization member delivering services to multiple customers using batch tools, workload automation, or service-oriented architecture platform tools. For example, if I go to a small ERP vendor in the UK, they only look for an affordable tool. If I offer AutoSys Workload Automation, it is too costly for them to manage, and they cannot utilize all the capabilities. I know Control-M is very agile and iterative. If a small customer has a requirement, they can pick it up easily, and they have strong development and sales teams to add on to their existing product solutions and what we call solution enablers and epics. Any product contains two things: market enablers and epics. If I need to add an AI agent, something specific, I can just deploy that agent. The ability to add solutions depends significantly on individual customer needs, and Control-M adapts well to requirements from existing solutions. However, Control-M has its limitations; for instance, if I want to run a million jobs, it may break, while AutoSys Workload Automation is much more reliable and has defined system break-even points. I have not physically compared Control-M and AutoSys Workload Automation in a lab, but I can say AutoSys Workload Automation is more scalable and durable compared to Control-M.

Autosys is still lagging behind some competitive products from a functionality perspective. They need to include more features in the product. It performs the basic activity and core functionality satisfactorily. However, when compared to other products in the market, it is still behind other solutions.

The monitoring aspect needs improvement. As a consumer, I would benefit from an automated monitoring solution or APIs to make the process more convenient. Providing APIs or a plug-and-play tool would be extremely useful.

The visibility and control features are somewhat limited. This is a recognized weakness, but thee vendor is currently revamping the user interface to address it. While the current UI is a bit outdated, it's undergoing improvement. AutoSys Workload Automation has some areas for improvement, particularly in housekeeping and product maintenance. These tasks are currently quite manual and labor-intensive for our team. Additionally, the reporting and forecasting functionalities could be more robust. One area for improvement with AutoSys Workload Automation is that it comprises several distinct tools configured to work together. This necessitates familiarity with multiple tools for effective solution management. Consequently, it can sometimes lack a sense of cohesiveness as a unified solution.

There is a recently made change in AutoSys Workload Automation's subscription model. The solution does not have a friendly subscription model because it forces users to take a five-year subscription simultaneously, charging millions of dollars. Hence, our managers are looking for alternatives to AutoSys Workload Automation.

It would be helpful to be able to monitor and manage workload windows so we could minimize downstream applications. This would allow us easier access to the applications.

An area for improvement in AutoSys Workload Automation is that it lacks advanced features or advanced built-in functionalities found in competitors, for example, an advanced workflow feature. Even the handling or notification from AutoSys Workload Automation isn't the best in the industry. Other products have very good workflow-related functionalities such as ActiveBatch that's missing in AutoSys Workload Automation, so I wish the tool had those features.

AutoSys Workload Automation could improve the integration.

There should be easier migrations from a different bus scheduler. Prior to this workload, we were using BMC control M and the migration was really hard. We had to manually create the jobs and there was no sort of automation for the migration. Workload Automation could improve the handling of file transfer jobs. Compared to control M, control M allows multiple file transfers. It can have five types of files that can be transferred. They have different file formats or different sizes. You can configure it in control M. Here, you only have one and three for file transfer. A lot of times you also encounter issues with SSL crypto in conflict on certain jobs. Basically, the newer servers have newer security measures and currently, the product is not compatible with them.

AutoSys Workload Automation could improve in the Linux environment. The previous versions of the AutoSys Workload Automation let you take the profile of the user that you were using to run the tasks that you're going to automate, but in the latest versions, you can't do that, you need to make more definitions and it's a little bit difficult. It was easier in the previous versions. In an upcoming release, AutoSys Workload Automation could include more integrations capabilities. I have seen other tools that have native integrations with other tools, such as Docker and other services in the cloud. They are not taking this into account in AutoSys Workload Automation.

We are trying to see if we can use this from a cloud perspective with AWS, Azure, and other clouds, but it seems that there is no cloud integration in this product. We would like to see cloud integration. We are very pleased with this solution, but we are moving our application to the cloud, and we found out that it doesn't support any cloud features. So, we are trying to find a replacement.

If you do not need the latest features like cloud and compare, I would really advise using AutoSys. For future technologies, I cannot answer the question yet. In terms of what should be in the next release, I want integration and AI and so on. I'd like easy reporting where you can compare information, for example, "that job normally takes three minutes and last time it took six minutes or 10 minutes." Then you can get the information to the engineer of which job is taking more time than normal - understanding strange behavior compared to the baseline.

The solution could improve by having support for container environments.

The graphical interface can be improved.

Support definitely needs improvement. It's possible they're in some kind of transition so I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt but it's an issue. The pricing is definitely something they should look at, it's quite expensive. Finally, the latest features like the quick searching or better reporting and analysis of the jobs which are running in, needs to be improved. It's a great product but with the latest feature set there is a large scope for improvement. From a manageability point of view, the easy upgrade should be included and the frequent feature update too. Reporting and notifications need to be improved too, these are important things.

* It needs improvement in the high-availability side. * It needs improvement in WCC console and EEM console to make it user-friendly.

The installation process is complex, and is pretty archaic. The people who developed this had very little concern with GUI interface and it is all command line. Everything is K-space, and if you misspell a task by uppercase, lower case, etc. you just completely think that the task is different.

Performance improvements in the UI would be appreciated. It lacks support and integration with cloud computing platforms.

We see improvement possibilities in the processing provision of predefined evaluations or individual objects, or in the Self Service portal, which can be used by any user to monitor objects or start objects.

Despite the commitment of the development team to improve the UI since version 11.3, the WCC module still lacks true quality. There are still too many screens and the use cases need to be handled in a more "compact" way. I have not seen the v12 product yet. Note that this product is now a legacy product with a dwindling user base and support. Do not consider for a green site implementation